I think this is an excessively charitable interpretation. The researcher draws a direct link between this rather limited bit of evidence and his sweeping conclu

I think this is an excessively charitable interpretation. The researcher draws a direct link between this rather limited bit of evidence and his sweeping conclusion, not even bothering to preface it with something along the lines of "Along with other archaeological evidence, this suggests...". It's possible he was misquoted or gave additional context that was excised from the article, but then the writer is at fault for writing an article that leaves out crucial details.